Switch Theme:

WW2 - FoW or BA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which?
Bolt Action
Flames of War
Other?

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in hu
Regular Dakkanaut




Hungary

It really depends on the situation and enemy force. If you somehow have to attack vs. bunker buster/breakthrough guns you are toast.
Stuh 42 for president
   
Made in us
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





I havent played FOW, but I do play BA. Im a big fan of 28mm games too. But the game has great rules, and is much fun.

Down with Allies, Solo 2016! 
   
Made in us
Major





Central,ILL. USA

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Eumerin wrote:

As for the "single platoon of carriers" problem described above? Again, doesn't match my experience. Smoke barrages (to heavily restrict the defensive fire) and well-placed assaulting teams generally deal with any issues. Alternately (for something like a carrier or half-track), light anti-tank weapons like bazookas or anti-tank rifles.


Armour, and virtually everyone takes some kind of tank team, can simply stay out of range of man packed AT or out of LOS of AT guns while merrily MGing infantry to death when they come anywhere near an objective. Infantry can defend (but if they leave their fox holes they are basically dead) but they can't attack in the face of mobile machine guns. The carrier example happened to me, 100 points basically beat 1500, all I had that was able to actually attack them was my arty.

I tired to play pure infantry for a long time but it is either fairly static and boring or its futile.


Yeah,Playing against FV campers does suck and i should know i think the majority of players i have gamed against are campers.But any good Infantry General can attack a Armored company and win if they know their tactics and how to use terrain.Just ask PAtton he defeated a few with just arty and Infantry. But it Also never hurts to have some good Air support and a 155 BAttery around.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 14:10:35


 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel





Brum

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
.But any good Infantry General can attack a Armored company and win if they know their tactics and how to use terrain.


Unless the board is one giant forest or a featureless plain that just doesn't work. The simple problem is that mobile MGs can stay out of man packed AT fire/assault range for ever while still firing for full effect. They can also fairly easily stay out of range/LOS of towed AT, usually while covering an objective. Arty can kill them but arty isn't great at killing tank teams (IIRC its a 14% chance for 105mm arty to kill a top armour 1 tank) and airpower is terrible in FoW.

The only effective way to kill enemy tank teams as the attacker is to take your own tanks. I tired pure infantry for a long time and it just doesn't work if you have to attack.

FoW is not an infantry centric game and it never was. At least in BA you don't need to take anything on tracks/wheels.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 18:25:12


 
   
Made in us
Major





Central,ILL. USA

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
 col. krazy kenny wrote:
.But any good Infantry General can attack a Armored company and win if they know their tactics and how to use terrain.


Unless the board is one giant forest or a featureless plain that just doesn't work. The simple problem is that mobile MGs can stay out of man packed AT fire/assault range for ever while still firing for full effect. They can also fairly easily stay out of range/LOS of towed AT, usually while covering an objective. Arty can kill them but arty isn't great at killing tank teams (IIRC its a 14% chance for 105mm arty to kill a top armour 1 tank) and airpower is terrible in FoW.

The only effective way to kill enemy tank teams as the attacker is to take your own tanks. I tired pure infantry for a long time and it just doesn't work if you have to attack.

FoW is not an infantry centric game and it never was. At least in BA you don't need to take anything on tracks/wheels.



Sorry, i dont fight in Deserts,Mostly URban, Mountainous and Forest/Bocage country.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




 Silent Puffin? wrote:
 col. krazy kenny wrote:
.But any good Infantry General can attack a Armored company and win if they know their tactics and how to use terrain.


Unless the board is one giant forest or a featureless plain that just doesn't work. The simple problem is that mobile MGs can stay out of man packed AT fire/assault range for ever while still firing for full effect. They can also fairly easily stay out of range/LOS of towed AT, usually while covering an objective. Arty can kill them but arty isn't great at killing tank teams (IIRC its a 14% chance for 105mm arty to kill a top armour 1 tank) and airpower is terrible in FoW.


Again, WRONG.

You don't have to have a table that looks like Huertgan Forest to beat tanks with infantry. It's a matter of making sure that there's a proper mix of terrain (which is a problem with many players coming from other systems - they don't include a realistic amount of terrain), and then understanding how best to use your infantry to take advantage of it for concealment and movement purposes - along with all of the other tools that you're provided in the game, such as the rather sizeable weight of numbers that infantry lists enjoy. There's a reason why taking a Heavy Panzer Company (i.e. Tigers) against infantry is viewed as an almost automatic loss.

   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel





Brum

Eumerin wrote:

Again, WRONG.


Explain to me how you can attack across the board using nothing but infantry and appropriate support (static AT and artillery) when facing mobile armoured MGs? "Use terrain" isn't a very helpful answer as you will have to leave area terrain at some point and the other player will be using it as well to shut down lanes of fire.

A Scwhere Panzer list is an outlier due to its tiny size.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 07:02:23


 
   
Made in hu
Regular Dakkanaut




Hungary

"There's a reason why taking a Heavy Panzer Company (i.e. Tigers) against infantry is viewed as an almost automatic loss.
"
As a Tank company you have to attack and don't have the numbers to shoot or assault. I think only Remagen has some defending schwere panzer lists.
If you don't go extreme and has some infantry in support you are quite ok.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Sheffield, UK

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Explain to me how you can attack across the board using nothing but infantry and appropriate support (static AT and artillery) when facing mobile armoured MGs? "Use terrain" isn't a very helpful answer as you will have to leave area terrain at some point and the other player will be using it as well to shut down lanes of fire.


Why are you attacking in the first place? You auto defend against armour and mechanised infantry and roll off vs. other infantry. His MG's can't stay out of range and within 4" of the objective forever.
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel





Brum

 George Spiggott wrote:

...and roll off vs. other infantry.


Indeed you do and if you lose that roll you are then in a very bad position unless you have a mobile counter to their tank teams, i.e. tanks.

My point is that pure infantry in FoW doesn't work but it does in BA.
   
Made in gb
1st Lieutenant







Infantry attacking is not easy, but it is very doable! I've done well in tournaments with a variety of infantry lists, and in every single one I've had to attack.

British infantry are probably the easiest to attack with, firstly you get night attack, your artillery is at its strongest hitting the same point repeatedly, and have decent APC's.

Whilst there the best I've used Finn's French and Germans too (and attacking with RV German infantry is a great experience)

You need smoke, you need a way to force enemy armour to not just sit at 11 inches and shoot you, but a few ATG's and arty is more than capable.

Tanks have their own problems too as well, with a steep decline in effectiveness as you inflict damage, and they require support (recce/arty/AA) to work well.

My FOW Blog
http://breakthroughassault.blogspot.co.uk/

My Eldar project log (26/7/13)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5518969#post5518969

Exiles forum
http://exilesbbleague.phpbb4ever.com/index.php 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel





Brum

 Reaver83 wrote:
Infantry attacking is not easy, but it is very doable!


Yes it is, although I had to resort to the most overused T-34s in all of wargaming to do it effectively.

AT guns and arty simply didn't work for me reliably.

My PLog

Curently: DZC

Set phasers to malkie! 
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Western Kentucky

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Eumerin wrote:

As for the "single platoon of carriers" problem described above? Again, doesn't match my experience. Smoke barrages (to heavily restrict the defensive fire) and well-placed assaulting teams generally deal with any issues. Alternately (for something like a carrier or half-track), light anti-tank weapons like bazookas or anti-tank rifles.


Armour, and virtually everyone takes some kind of tank team, can simply stay out of range of man packed AT or out of LOS of AT guns while merrily MGing infantry to death when they come anywhere near an objective. Infantry can defend (but if they leave their fox holes they are basically dead) but they can't attack in the face of mobile machine guns. The carrier example happened to me, 100 points basically beat 1500, all I had that was able to actually attack them was my arty.

I tired to play pure infantry for a long time but it is either fairly static and boring or its futile.

What army were you using, and period? It seems odd that youre getting shut down that effectively.

Of course, part of the point of the gamr is combined arms beats trying to run only one thing, but infantry lists shouldnt be attacking very often if youre using the missions in the rulebook. You only have a 50/50 attacking enemy infantry companies and only auto attack fortified. If tank armies are common you should be on the defense most of the time

Adding to that I find it odd your AT guns arent getting shots most of the time while your infantry are getting shot at. Do you not put them behind your infantry when you expect that to happen? Also, dug in infantry are almost impossible to kill with MGs when dug im and gone to ground, especially vets. I think the odds is something like 50 shots of MG dice to kill one Gone to groud veteran team that is dug in.


Anyways, onto the OP's question.

Flames of war is all about combined arms. Trying to take nothing but one unit is usually met with difficulties, just like in real life. Pure tank forces have a nightmare of a time assaulting infantry on an objective. Taking no tanks is like taking no artillery, or no air support, or no AT guns. Yeah, you might be able to pull it off but its gonna be harder.

Thats the point of a company level game though. Thats a pretty big engagement, so naturally you cant just run around with rifles and LMG's and expect to win. Thats the nature of real life, infantry assaults without tank support usually got repulsed, and tank assaults without infantry escort, especially in built up areas, had absolutely hideous losses.


Bolt Action on the other hand is a platoon based game. Thats why pure infantry forces work so well in Bolt Action. A bolt action game is basically a single assault phase in Flames of war. Ranges are much closer, terrain making close range firefights even more common, and when even Bazookas and Panzershrecks have a 24" range its not as hard to hunt down enemy tanks. That said, support and mixed composition is still good to have in bolt action, and even there I usually bring a tank of some sort as backup for dealing with MG nests and hard targets.


As to which OP should choose, you have two questions

1.Do you prefer 28mm or 15mm? Both are fun to paint, so its down to preference. 15mm is easier to speedpaint, but 28mm allows more customization and personalization.

2. Do you want a platoon or company scale game? Platoon scale allows for things like snipers, flamethrowers, MMG's, and officers to really shine. A company scale game will allow things like air support, heavy tanks, and more specialized units like engineers and artillery batteries to get used. There is no right or wrong answer, just what you prefer. Infantry can still fight in flames and tanks can still fight in Bolt action, they just have different emphasis.

I play both, so that should give you an idea of where I stand. I play Bolt Action for one kind of game, and Flames for a different one. I bounce back and forth on a whim so I dont think you can go wrong. Just go with your gut and eventually you'll buy the other anyways

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/03 21:25:15


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



Orlando

What he said. I have played both. If I like lots of vehicles or epic style battles, then there is FoW. If I want a more every individual model makes a difference army then BA. Mostly I play BA just because its muuuuuch easier to find players down here and very easy to teach. I think I enjoy BA more.than FoW.

Oddly enough my primary army for both is the same German FJs at Cassino. Thematically my FJ platoon in BA is one of my platoons in FoW.

Also note that BA 2nd edition is coming out after many years of 1st. The army books are not changing as far as I have heard(Germany is getting better national rules) although a few mechanics are. Artillery/explosives will now be template effects instead of rolling xd6 for hits. Officers will actually have a purpose aside from just being a mandatory model that gives LD buffs if they happen to be standing there next to a unit. Apparently they will be able to activate multiple units, but they haven't given any real concrete details yet about it. I am thinking that they are incorporating a few things they have learned from GoA and it looks like they will be changes for the better.

Infantrymen do not die, they go to heaven and regroup. 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

I played 40k a fair bit so Bolt Action was an easy game to pick-up.
The random activation with the dice is a mechanic I like.
It is more a skirmish game so would not be a first choice for epic sized battles.

Flames of War I have never played but I kept away due to the many comments on "balance".

I was oddly surprised with this old game: Command Decision: Test of Battle.
This has been introduced by my friends in our gaming group, I think it would be near impossible to find pickup games other than the above 2 games.
It plays surprisingly well and has a ton of detail without bogging the whole thing down.
We have been playing it with 72nd scale models which are reasonable to get a hold of cheaply.
The author of the game says that "Flames of War" IS a good game.
I really do like his comment that they make no apologies for NOT being "slaves to history" and trying to make an exciting game.
http://testofbattle.com/drupal-4.7.4/node/23
His comment of not getting involved in it is that it is at the "lieutenant or captain" level of command.
He says being older he prefers to give himself a promotion and be at the "colonel or brigadier" level.
http://testofbattle.com/drupal-4.7.4/node/28

Good luck, I think there is no wrong choice as long as you are sure you can find fun people to game with.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in hu
Regular Dakkanaut




Hungary

We play friendly matches, no list tailoring or long planning. Had great games with late-war too, but many times it turned hopeless early. With mid-war we always have though matches where both parties have reasonable chance for a win near the end too, so we "stuck" with it.

If the only reason that kept you away are the balance issues you should try mid-war.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Eumerin wrote:

Again, WRONG.


Explain to me how you can attack across the board using nothing but infantry and appropriate support (static AT and artillery) when facing mobile armoured MGs? "Use terrain" isn't a very helpful answer as you will have to leave area terrain at some point and the other player will be using it as well to shut down lanes of fire.



And the smoke bombardment is for when you have to briefly leave the terrain.


Plus, if you're running an infantry list, then you've got platoons to spare. A single platoon of mobile MG carriers (which only has a 16" range) isn't going to be able to shut down your entire company. What are your other platoons doing while your opponent is attempting to repeatedly pin one of your infantry platoons? Are you using your infantry to attempt to envelop the MG carriers and constrain their movement? It's not as if the MG carriers don't have limits placed on what they're doing.

   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Western Kentucky

Lathor wrote:
We play friendly matches, no list tailoring or long planning. Had great games with late-war too, but many times it turned hopeless early. With mid-war we always have though matches where both parties have reasonable chance for a win near the end too, so we "stuck" with it.

If the only reason that kept you away are the balance issues you should try mid-war.

Mid-War is a lot of fun, I've only played it a couple of times with what was essentially a late war list (as in, 3 StuG G's was 525pts!) but I found it very different to how Late war plays.


Late war, being the big period for FoW, tends to have a lot of "snowflake" lists, especially Germans. This means you can see all kinds of kooky stuff, especially with the really late war stuff like Desperate Measures or Berlin.

In Mid War, there's a lot more emphasis on more traditional units and having more down to earth, run of the mill armies. This was back when the Germans were still hanging in there so they look a lot more uniform and tend to have less kooky stuff. Not to mention, the dreaded tanks that you always hear stories about actually work the way they were claimed to in history. A single Tiger in Mid War for example can be nearly invincible if played well (unless it's mine, which always misses) Taking Tigers in Late war, where everyone and their mom has AT 12 or higher standard, is just a lesson in sadness.

There are rumors that Battlefront is about to reboot Mid War, and if so, we could see a change in that policy, but for now that's how it is. The only annoying thing is that Mid War books are all out of print at the moment. So unless you buy the digital versions, you'll have to hunt down a used copy of Eastern Front or Africa.

'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




 MrMoustaffa wrote:
There are rumors that Battlefront is about to reboot Mid War, and if so, we could see a change in that policy, but for now that's how it is. The only annoying thing is that Mid War books are all out of print at the moment. So unless you buy the digital versions, you'll have to hunt down a used copy of Eastern Front or Africa.


While new Mid-War content hasn't been explicitly announced, it was all but stated in a recent comment from BF that talked about going someplace "sandy" in the near future - i.e. North Africa.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Specifically what was said is...

John-Paul wrote:The current focus on Team Yankee is due to the two new books we have coming this year and one launching this month. It was always the plan to bring four full armies into the conflict in the first year. Lets not forget that Pacific was also released three months ago and with the new compilations and plastics in September FOW will have get four books to the two TY ones this year so both periods will have had serious attention this year.

Trying to not to give too much away about the start of next years plan at this point we are busy working on new books and plastics for a sandy warzone but given the scope of going back to a period for the first time in eight years we have a very large pile of things to make and with over twenty plastic codes being worked on time is what was needed to do all this work. Comprehensive plans and plastics take time but as you will see in a few months time when we start sharing the detailed plans the scope of the work you will see we have not been idle and FOW will be getting no end of love whilst we continue to add a further three new forces to TY and it will all out in 2017.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
 
Forum Index » Historical Miniature Games: WW1 to Modern
Go to: